Curse

assassin_of_ni · Jun 29, 2007, 03:45 PM // 15:45

5 =D

i dont think it should go 100% one way or the other. GW made their profit from offering somethin to everyone and thus it should stay. although its questionable whether or not ill be buying gw2 due to work and other things its what ide like to see.

but personally i really want to see this realm v realm pvp they were planning where you can just pop into a battle ground, do something and just pop right back out. i doubt its going to be anything like i picture it with virtually limitless team sizes and team entries and the battle ground itself being about as big as the grenths footprint area.

JoeKnowMo · Jul 02, 2007, 11:42 PM // 23:42

So you don't have to refer back to the OP, here are the poll question and options:

If you had to choose, what would you want GW2 to have?

1) PvE only
2) PvE + Unranked PvP (Random Arena, Fort Aspenwood, Alliance Battles, Team Arena)
3) PvE + Ranked PvP (Heroes’ Ascent, Guild Battles [GvG], Hero Battles [HvH])
4) PvP only (both Casual and Hardcore)
5) I don’t care
6) I would not buy GW2

I set up a similar poll on GWO (didn't have option 6 there) so I'll post results from both sites for comparison and maybe a more comprehensive picture.

Here are the polling results [percentage votes followed by absolute numbers in parentheses]:

Guru

Total votes: 83

1) 15.66% (13)
2) 46.99% (39)
3) 19.88% (16.5)
4) 10.24% (8.5)
5) 1.20% (1)
6) 6.02% (5)

GWO

Total votes: 512

1) 23.83% (122)
2) 48.63% (249)
3) 17.77% (91)
4) 6.45% (33)
5) 3.32% (17)
6) [N/A]

The biggest differences are on options # 1 and # 4 which probably reflects the population bias of the two forums.

I, for one, found the results interesting. I was surprised by how many voted for option # 1. I also didn't expect option # 2 to poll out so similarly between the two sites.

I would like the game to stay the way it is with a mechanic to slightly separate pve and pvp skills, based on character level or pve-only skills that buff the rest of your skills in pve (e.g., Glyph of Chanting - Your next 5 shouts/chants are increased by 2-5 attribute levels or Glyph of AoE (recharge 45s) - Your next 2 Mesmer spells will affect not just the target foe but nearby foes as well).

I truly like GW the way it is. Even though I don't play ranked pvp, I still enjoy watching observer mode and learning from the best players. In addition, ranked pvp keeps around some of the most knowledgable and informative posters on these forums. The community would be less well-off without them.

Thanks for voting.

InfernalSuffering · Jul 02, 2007, 11:45 PM // 23:45

4

t w e l v e

Voltar · Jul 03, 2007, 12:00 AM // 00:00

2 if only to avoid trails of snot on the ceiling but 3 if that could be avoided. no mention of world pvp? no shadow prison sins ganking low level eles? where's the fun in that?

warren_kn · Jul 03, 2007, 12:00 AM // 00:00

#2. PvE for me is infinitely more interesting but I do like some casual PvP as a change. Serious PvP though holds no interest for me.

jayce · Jul 04, 2007, 05:30 AM // 05:30

2

but it would be nice if arenanet could somehow combine pvp with the storyline. where each victory or defeat in a pvp battle could take your group down a different path within the story, and branching out (like that of a family tree) from the very first battle. that would be a win situation for both customer and arenanet. almost everyone would expericence their own different version of the story by the time they reached the end.

Jayce Of Underworld

lennymon · Jul 04, 2007, 08:23 AM // 08:23

Without everything, It's not GW....
All or nothing! GW is the best at this and without both we're just an instanced WoW (with *far* better graphics), but failing that I'll bend towards pve since Ima mostly there anyways. Reluctantly... (jeebus GVG rocks)

Shakkara · Jul 04, 2007, 09:32 AM // 09:32

1, PVE only.

I hate all competitive aspects of a game.

Spirit Cookie · Jul 04, 2007, 03:13 PM // 15:13

2 or 3, doesnt matter

OI-812 · Jul 04, 2007, 04:16 PM // 16:16

In a contest between PvE and PvP, one or the other, PvE wins IMO. But amongst the options you listed, 2 and to a lesser extent 3 are perfectly fine.

Keithark · Jul 04, 2007, 04:41 PM // 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

PvP only, then ANet might actually balance the damn game properly without fear of pissing off the PvE'rs

or better yet, do away with PVP and then no more nerfs and everyone is happy....well all that are important anyway (PvE players)

The Little Viking · Jul 12, 2007, 12:51 AM // 00:51

2....i like the alliance battles somewhat, but am more into the pve then anything. Only do the alliance battles when i need faction points or balthazar points which isnt very often.

Quantum Duck · Jul 12, 2007, 01:07 AM // 01:07

It's not a simple enough decision to make without information, but being forced to choose between the two would push me towards option 6.

If GW2 was PvE only, it would have to do something really impressive to not be a weaker copy of every other PvE focused MMO that my friends are already trying to drag me into. I really don't need more time sinks oriented games in my life, though a good non grind RPG could be fun if they were willing to ignore all the people asking for "more things to do" after the first thousand hours of play and actually make one.

If it was PvP only... Well, the possibility really isn't even worth mentioning, since it couldn't possibly ever happen under any circumstances given the people involved in making it. In some abstract, theoretical world, they could make a really good PvP only game that would probably be very good. They don't really have the right staffing for it at the moment though, since they focus so heavily on lots of art and landscaping.

I'm assuming it will be both, and if they do a good job at both again and it's not too much of a pain to move between the two I'll probably like it.

Caith-Avar · Jul 12, 2007, 01:08 AM // 01:08

While I respect high-level PvP, my personal choice would be either 1 or 2.
I am almost exclusively PvE player, every other month or something I'll spend an evening of three hours or so in Alliance Battles.

Quid Pro Quo · Jul 12, 2007, 01:33 AM // 01:33

3

I'm exclusive to PvE until I'm bored. Then I dabble in PvP and stop playing but honestly I don't actually care about the PvP part. Anyone who is actually serious about PvP does the hardcore stuff and should have it.

Jaythen Tyradel · Jul 12, 2007, 03:37 AM // 03:37

I like 2..but I think 3 is the best option.
I like PVE, but I have tired to get into the GW PVP side but most of it is just not fun to me.
I would still like to get into PVP so I hope GW2 PVP offers serious and casual PVP for me and others to try.

entropy · Jul 12, 2007, 03:49 AM // 03:49

hmm I guess the player base has shifted a lot. It used to be much more pvp oriented atleast a year ago.

sassoonssamson · Jul 12, 2007, 09:13 AM // 09:13

2 or 3

PVE has to be there

I am not paying for just PVP stuff

Necromonger · Jul 12, 2007, 11:16 AM // 11:16

PvE for me thanks, not bothering with the 1-6 options because it's a "if you had to choose"

Necromonger · Jul 12, 2007, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by entropy

hmm I guess the player base has shifted a lot. It used to be much more pvp oriented atleast a year ago.

I think PvP'ers are just more vocal, they complain all the time, and think it's fair that Anet will upset the whole PvE experience because of a current build being used in PvP.